Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. From November 5, 2012 to December 22, 2012, the Defendants conspired to commit an act of impairing the honor of the victim D by openly pointing out facts, such as attaching a printed article stating “205, No. D, for 32 months, he/she has the strong quality of management expenses.”

2. The Defendants asserted that the posting of the instant printed materials was for the benefit of all residents in relation to the management work of D, which was a manager of C building, and that the content thereof was true or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendants were true, and that it constitutes a case where illegality is dismissed solely for the public interest.

3. Determination

A. Even in a case where a person defames another person, if it is true and solely for the public interest, and there is no illegality in the act and there is considerable reason to believe that it is true even if it is not proven to be true, the phrase “the time when it is for the public interest” in this context refers to the public interest when the publicly alleged facts are objectively viewed, and the actor also expresses the facts for the public interest. In this case, the issue of whether the publicly alleged facts relate to the public interest shall be determined by comparing and determining the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, taking into account all the circumstances such as the specific contents of the publicly alleged facts in question, the scope of the counter-party to whom the relevant fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, and if the principal purpose or motive of the actor is for the public interest, even if there is an incidental motive for other private interest, it

Supreme Court Decision 95Da36329 delivered on October 11, 1996